Court’s Decision:
The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the second bail application of the accused in a case registered under Sections 363, 366, 376(D), and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Court held that “taking into consideration the statement under Section 164 CrPC and the fact that the victim accompanied the applicant of her own will,” it was a fit case for bail. Bail was granted on stringent conditions, including appearance on key dates and prohibition on misuse of liberty.
Facts:
The applicant was arrested on 23 July 2023 in connection with the alleged abduction and sexual assault of a minor girl. The complaint was lodged by the victim’s father alleging that the applicant abducted his daughter and had physical relations with her. Statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were recorded. The first bail application was withdrawn earlier. The second bail plea was based on a changed circumstance: the victim had been examined during trial and did not make allegations in her Section 164 CrPC statement.
Issues:
- Whether bail should be granted considering the discrepancies in the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC.
- Whether continued pre-trial detention of the accused is justified when the victim does not allege force or coercion in court.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated and the victim had voluntarily accompanied him. It was submitted that there was no allegation in the Section 164 CrPC statement and that the victim had already been examined, thereby eliminating the possibility of witness tampering. The applicant had been in custody since July 2023.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The State opposed bail, submitting that the Section 161 CrPC statement contained clear allegations against the accused. However, the prosecution conceded that no such allegations were made under Section 164 CrPC. The victim’s parents, appearing virtually, strongly objected to bail being granted.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court noted the difference between the Section 161 and Section 164 CrPC statements and placed weight on the latter, being a judicial confession. It also took note of the fact that the victim was already examined during the trial and that the evidence did not support continued detention.
Precedent Analysis:
While no specific case law was cited, the Court relied on well-established principles for bail—nature of the accusation, stage of trial, evidence recorded, and likelihood of tampering with witnesses.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court held that in light of the victim’s testimony, including her Section 164 statement where no allegation was made, the charge of abduction and forcible sexual assault could not be conclusively sustained at this stage. Since the victim had been examined, the risk of influencing witnesses was minimal. The Court found no merit in further pretrial incarceration.
Conclusion:
Bail was granted upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 and one surety, subject to strict conditions, including personal appearance on key dates and no adjournments when witnesses are present. The trial court was requested to conclude the matter within six months.
Implications:
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s cautious but balanced approach in POCSO and rape cases where the victim’s testimony does not support the prosecution’s narrative. It highlights the importance of judicial scrutiny of material evidence such as Section 164 CrPC statements and ensures that bail decisions are not mechanical but context-sensitive.
